Kevin.N.Broekhoven@queensu.ca (01/28/91)
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 1991 11:24:00 Message-Id: 4437:Kevin.N.Broekhoven@QueensU.CA From: Kevin.N.Broekhoven@QueensU.CA To: xpert@athena.mit.edu Subject: X Windows and Unix SysVR4 * *-------------------------------------------------------------------------* * I sent this message last week to xpert, but received no indication it had * * arrived -- sorry for any duplicate postings, if a mail link suddenly goes * * "up" and delivers all of my mail in a batch. * * *-------------------------------------------------------------------------* I know that OpenLook is part of the SysVR4 specification, and that OpenLook is currently implemented using the X11 protocol. However is X11 part of the SysVR4 specification? Would these guys be free to implement OpenLook with some other windowing system in the future, or is the X11 component of the specification cast in stone? Similarly, Motif is (will be?) part of the OSF/1 operating system spec. Motif is currently implemented with X11. Is X11 a fixed part of the OSF/Motif spec, or could OSF change to another windowing protocol in the future? thanks in advance, Kevin Broekhoven Computing Centre applications programmer Queens University K7L-3N6 (Canada) Bitnet, NetNorth: BROEKHVN@QUCDN IP: kevin@ccs.QueensU.CA (130.15.48.9) X.400: Kevin.Broekhoven@QueensU.CA Bell: (613) 545-2235 fax: 545-6798 Kevin Broekhoven Computing Centre applications programmer Queens University K7L-3N6 (Canada) Bitnet, NetNorth: BROEKHVN@QUCDN IP: kevin@ccs.QueensU.CA (130.15.48.9) X.400: Kevin.Broekhoven@QueensU.CA Bell: (613) 545-2235 fax: 545-6798
preece@urbana.mcd.mot.COM (Scott E. Preece) (01/29/91)
|From: Kevin.N.Broekhoven@queensu.ca |I know that OpenLook is part of the SysVR4 specification, and that OpenLook is |currently implemented using the X11 protocol. |However is X11 part of the SysVR4 specification? Would these guys |be free to implement OpenLook with some other windowing system in the future, |or is the X11 component of the specification cast in stone? --- OPEN LOOK is actually a look and feel specification rather than a toolkit. There are several toolkits implementing it in different ways. The XView toolkit, for instance, is X based but not Xt based, while the OLIT toolkit is Xt based. You are free to implement it any way you like. If you want to comply with the SVID or an SVR4 ABI, you do have to support Xlib (to the X11R3 spec), but don't need to support either Xt or OPEN LOOK. --- |Similarly, Motif is (will be?) part of the OSF/1 operating system spec. Motif |is currently implemented with X11. Is X11 a fixed part of the OSF/Motif spec, |or could OSF change to another windowing protocol in the future? --- Actually, OSF/Motif is not part of the OSF/1 spec. It is covered by a separate OSF specification (the Application Environment Specification) which can live on top of a variety of operating systems. There are several toolkits implementing the OSF/Motif look and feel as well.
fgreco@govt.shearson.COM (Frank Greco) (01/30/91)
> > I know that OpenLook is part of the SysVR4 specification, and that OpenLook is > currently implemented using the X11 protocol. > However is X11 part of the SysVR4 specification? Would these guys > be free to implement OpenLook with some other windowing system in the future, > or is the X11 component of the specification cast in stone? > At an AT&T SVR4 seminar some time ago, I received literature that specified that X/NeWS was to be the standard window server for SVR4. And that OLIT (nee Xt+), XVIEW and TNT (NeWS-based OPENLOOK) were the standard OPENLOOK toolkits available. Frank G. (side note: I received a snail mail flyer from Microport recently touting their PC-based SVR4 port. On it they say they are including X/NeWS.)
geoff@Veritas.COM (Geoffrey Leach) (01/30/91)
From article <9101291745.AA06104@fis1.shearson.com>, by fgreco@govt.shearson.COM (Frank Greco): >> >> I know that OpenLook is part of the SysVR4 specification, and that OpenLook is >> currently implemented using the X11 protocol. >> However is X11 part of the SysVR4 specification? Would these guys >> be free to implement OpenLook with some other windowing system in the future, >> or is the X11 component of the specification cast in stone? >> > > At an AT&T SVR4 seminar some time ago, I received literature > that specified that X/NeWS was to be the standard window > server for SVR4. And that OLIT (nee Xt+), XVIEW and TNT > (NeWS-based OPENLOOK) were the standard OPENLOOK toolkits available. Ah, but there's a catch. "Consider it standard" =/= "it comes for free". XT+ is an optional-at-extra-cost part of SVR4. Further, of course, distributors of binary versions of SVR4 are not required to offer it. Given the extra cost (to them) and the popularity of Motif, I expect that it will be hard-if-not-impossible to get Open Look from many of the Unix International members.
guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (01/31/91)
>At an AT&T SVR4 seminar some time ago, I received literature >that specified that X/NeWS was to be the standard window >server for SVR4. Well, they now appear to provide what I think is an AT&T-developed X11-only server (part of their XWIN product, or derived from the one therein), and the X11/NeWS server, as part of whatever window system package or packages you get with S5R4 source or can order as part of it.
guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (01/31/91)
>|However is X11 part of the SysVR4 specification? Would these guys >|be free to implement OpenLook with some other windowing system in the future, >|or is the X11 component of the specification cast in stone? >--- >OPEN LOOK is actually a look and feel specification rather than a >toolkit. There are several toolkits implementing it in different ways. >The XView toolkit, for instance, is X based but not Xt based, while the >OLIT toolkit is Xt based. You are free to implement it any way you like. And, as noted by another poster, the tNt toolkit isn't X-based at all, it's NeWS-based. I think the window system being done for QNX by its developer (I've forgotten their name) uses the OPEN LOOK L&F, but isn't X or NeWS.